The Limits to Charity
- PDF / 75,637 Bytes
- 2 Pages / 536 x 697 pts Page_size
- 17 Downloads / 173 Views
13/7/99 12:12 pm
Page 105
Development. Copyright © 1999 The Society for International Development. SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi), 1011-6370 (199909) 42:3; 105–106; 009811.
Last Word
The Limits to Charity FRANCK AMALRIC
In spite of all that has been said and written about the shortcomings of aid, decline in ODA remains widely interpreted as a decline in solidarity between North and South, in particular within development co-operation agencies, as if development co-operation – whether public or private – provided the main vehicle for the expression of solidarity. Solidarity, however, has many meanings. In his book The Pelle, the Italian author Malaparte, writing about Naples in 1943 after the arrival of the Allies, defined solidarity as the moral sentiment that stirs one to intervene to help others. Interestingly, he identified that sentiment as typically American, and distinguished it from the Christian value of compassion, the feeling of distress or pity for the suffering of others. That definition of solidarity as charity still survives in Italy today, in particular among development NGOs. But elsewhere, solidarity means something very different. Following Solidarinošc in Poland, Nordic cultures define solidarity as the feeling that we share a common destiny. It pushes us, therefore, to act accordingly, in particular by being respectful of others. For instance, Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke, the Danish Association for International Co-operation, defines solidarity as ‘unity or mutual dependence’. Thus, in some contexts solidarity means charity; in others, it means mutual dependence. In the first case, it is expressed through interventions to help others; in the second case, through respect for others. This distinction has far-reaching implications. The actions, organizations, and institutions of altruism and respect differ widely, because one is about reaching out to others and the other is about changing one’s own actions. Most importantly, they differ in their capacity to bring people together. Charity is not an ‘inclusive’ value. While a community may express charity as a group, as a nation expresses solidarity towards another one, charity work itself is not conducive to the creation of a new collective identity that would cut across diverse segments of society (i.e. beyond the community of charity workers). The reason is that there is an implicit moral hierarchy between those
21 Last Word (jl/d)
13/7/99 12:12 pm
Page 106
Development 42(3): Last Word who act, i.e. the charity workers, and others engaged in other types of work. A dialogue between these groups on the basis of charity is unequal, as it emphasizes the moral superiority of the activities of one group over the activities of the other. In the extreme, charity can even generate divisions, a split between the ‘good guys’ who work for others, and the ‘bad guys’ who pursue more earthly objectives. The duty to respect, by contrast, cannot be discharged on specialized organizations. Respect is essentially a characteristic
Data Loading...
